6 ms·

> The British Library keeps to a ‘safe date’ when determining when a newspaper can be considered to be entirely out-of-copyright, which is 140 years after the d

by cube00 5y ago

> The British Library keeps to a ‘safe date’ when determining when a newspaper can be considered to be entirely out-of-copyright, which is 140 years after the date of publication. It's depressing that copyright has been extended so far it's now longer then any single individual's possible lifetime.

Zenst 5y ago
Wasn't it Disney and other media companies that pushed copyright duration towards this 140 year value? I vaguely recall that as a driving factor though maybe wrong and one of those unproven theories or meme'd news of times past. Be ironic (A children focused company like Disney pushing thru a change in law that actually in the end harms the children as it limits their access for their lifetime into copyright servitude that shows little thought for the children) if was as would sure add a whole new spin to the "think of the children" sound-bite often used to push thru some change in law/rules. Still, somewhat sad. More so as we build building today too a standard that is not that long-standing in years by design.
- fredoralive 5y ago
  AFAIK the 140 year is just an arbitary value the British Library have used, it isn't part of copyright law. The UK has used a life + X[1] years system since the 1840s[2]. I guess they assume 140 years is enough to ensure any unknown / untracable authors have been dead for long enough for a work to be near unquestionably in the public domain. [1] Where X has steadily increased with each copyright law revision. [2] The US was a weird outlier on this for a long time after most of the world settled on this system.
Ovah 5y ago
The National library of Sweden has a similar website but for newspapers printed in Sweden. They write "Copyright protection is valid for 115 years on the day. The free material is moved forward by one day every day." I get that likes such as Disney has an interest in extending it. Maybe a middle ground could be the ability to apply for extensions of individual works instead of a universal blanket extension? This long period really hampers my ability to do research on 1700s literature - a lot of such research was done in the early 1900s. But that content, even if it's 100 years old, just isn't indexed anywhere (e.g. Google books) due to copyright even if it is already digitized. https://tidningar.kb.se https://tidningar.kb.se
dalbasal 5y ago
This needs to change, big time. There is almost no cash value to an article one day later, yet we completely impoverish the public domain for its sake. Not only are creators of valuable works is usually pretty distant from direct ownership anyway, there's no possible way for them to profit directly from this work. The only way a spotify-like deal works is because copyright ownership is conglomerated. IMO, public (especially free-as-in-beer) access to newspaper archives could be pretty liberally justified on fair use grounds.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > There is almost no cash value to an article one day later, yet we completely impoverish the public domain for its sake. We're not imposing publishing restrictions on past works in order to preserve their cash value. We're imposing publishing restrictions on past works in order to stop them from competing with present works. It keeps the cash value of present works up.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    That makes even less sense, though. Yesterday's news does not really compete with today's news, they're effectively in separate markets.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      So? Yesterday's books, movies, and music compete with today's books, movies, and music. Nobody cares about the news one way or the other. So the news gets treated just like everything else.
      - dalbasal 5y ago
        Well... the fair use case and/or the public good case are pretty strong for news.
      - bnj 5y ago
        There are virtually unlimited quantities of free to consume media - TV, Books, Movies. People don't pay more money for new creations because the older works aren't published or available. Relaxing copyright restrictions after a more reasonable period (seven years) doesn't take value away from new work, it enriches the public commons in a way that encourages the creation of new culture. A tiny portion of cultural works remain profitable after the first few years. Grant seven years of copyright automatically, and let creators purchase extensions in five year blocks that increase in price. $100 for five additional years, $1000 for five years after that, $10000 for five more, $100000 for five more. It makes no sense to barricade all cultural works behind a copyright wall to protect the tiny slice of properties that continue to pay dividends after a generation.
iechoz6H 5y ago
It's even worse than that, from the failed registration page: View 3 pages FREE when you register to help you get started Explore hundreds of national, regional and local titles dating from the 1700s-2000s Search, save and organise your favourite topics
Normille 5y ago
Oh. It's worse than that. Copyright apparently extends back to the middle ages: https://stiobhart.net/2021-04-8-bubble-trouble/ https://stiobhart.net/2021-04-8-bubble-trouble/
- vidarh 5y ago
  The article does not say that. It conflates copyright and trademarks a couple of places, but it's clear that this is a combination of Redbubble applying their own over-cautious policies combined with trademark registrations, not copyright. There are plenty of issues with trademarks too, but they are very different to copyright.
  - Normille 5y ago
    I think the nub of the article is that the artist had his artwork banned just for referring to the fact his designs were inspired by a mediaeval manuscript ie. 'The Book of Kells' because Trinity College have trademarked 'The Book of Kells' to use as a brand name on products they sell. As it says in the article >...So, are [Trinity College] actually saying that no one is even allowed to mention "The Book of Kells", for fear of violating their copyright? If so, that’s really going to fuck up a lot of History books!... I take on board what you mean about the distinction between Copyright and Trademark, but I think it still serves to illustrate just how ridiculous the legal minefield around both issues has become.
5faulker 5y ago
It's almost as if they're slowly declassifying documents over time.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  A funny thing is actual US classification guidance is the default declassification length is 10 years from publication, and the maximum length without a special appeal is 25 years: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Classification%20Guidance.pdf https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Classification%20G...

by cube00 5y ago

Zenst 5y ago

Wasn't it Disney and other media companies that pushed copyright duration towards this 140 year value? I vaguely recall that as a driving factor though maybe wrong and one of those unproven theories or meme'd news of times past. Be ironic (A children focused company like Disney pushing thru a change in law that actually in the end harms the children as it limits their access for their lifetime into copyright servitude that shows little thought for the children) if was as would sure add a whole new spin to the "think of the children" sound-bite often used to push thru some change in law/rules. Still, somewhat sad. More so as we build building today too a standard that is not that long-standing in years by design.

fredoralive 5y ago
AFAIK the 140 year is just an arbitary value the British Library have used, it isn't part of copyright law. The UK has used a life + X[1] years system since the 1840s[2]. I guess they assume 140 years is enough to ensure any unknown / untracable authors have been dead for long enough for a work to be near unquestionably in the public domain. [1] Where X has steadily increased with each copyright law revision. [2] The US was a weird outlier on this for a long time after most of the world settled on this system.

Ovah 5y ago

The National library of Sweden has a similar website but for newspapers printed in Sweden. They write "Copyright protection is valid for 115 years on the day. The free material is moved forward by one day every day." I get that likes such as Disney has an interest in extending it. Maybe a middle ground could be the ability to apply for extensions of individual works instead of a universal blanket extension? This long period really hampers my ability to do research on 1700s literature - a lot of such research was done in the early 1900s. But that content, even if it's 100 years old, just isn't indexed anywhere (e.g. Google books) due to copyright even if it is already digitized. https://tidningar.kb.se https://tidningar.kb.se

dalbasal 5y ago

This needs to change, big time. There is almost no cash value to an article one day later, yet we completely impoverish the public domain for its sake. Not only are creators of valuable works is usually pretty distant from direct ownership anyway, there's no possible way for them to profit directly from this work. The only way a spotify-like deal works is because copyright ownership is conglomerated. IMO, public (especially free-as-in-beer) access to newspaper archives could be pretty liberally justified on fair use grounds.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> There is almost no cash value to an article one day later, yet we completely impoverish the public domain for its sake. We're not imposing publishing restrictions on past works in order to preserve their cash value. We're imposing publishing restrictions on past works in order to stop them from competing with present works. It keeps the cash value of present works up.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  That makes even less sense, though. Yesterday's news does not really compete with today's news, they're effectively in separate markets.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    So? Yesterday's books, movies, and music compete with today's books, movies, and music. Nobody cares about the news one way or the other. So the news gets treated just like everything else.
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      Well... the fair use case and/or the public good case are pretty strong for news.
    - bnj 5y ago
      There are virtually unlimited quantities of free to consume media - TV, Books, Movies. People don't pay more money for new creations because the older works aren't published or available. Relaxing copyright restrictions after a more reasonable period (seven years) doesn't take value away from new work, it enriches the public commons in a way that encourages the creation of new culture. A tiny portion of cultural works remain profitable after the first few years. Grant seven years of copyright automatically, and let creators purchase extensions in five year blocks that increase in price. $100 for five additional years, $1000 for five years after that, $10000 for five more, $100000 for five more. It makes no sense to barricade all cultural works behind a copyright wall to protect the tiny slice of properties that continue to pay dividends after a generation.

iechoz6H 5y ago

It's even worse than that, from the failed registration page: View 3 pages FREE when you register to help you get started Explore hundreds of national, regional and local titles dating from the 1700s-2000s Search, save and organise your favourite topics

Normille 5y ago

Oh. It's worse than that. Copyright apparently extends back to the middle ages: https://stiobhart.net/2021-04-8-bubble-trouble/ https://stiobhart.net/2021-04-8-bubble-trouble/

vidarh 5y ago
The article does not say that. It conflates copyright and trademarks a couple of places, but it's clear that this is a combination of Redbubble applying their own over-cautious policies combined with trademark registrations, not copyright. There are plenty of issues with trademarks too, but they are very different to copyright.
- Normille 5y ago
  I think the nub of the article is that the artist had his artwork banned just for referring to the fact his designs were inspired by a mediaeval manuscript ie. 'The Book of Kells' because Trinity College have trademarked 'The Book of Kells' to use as a brand name on products they sell. As it says in the article >...So, are [Trinity College] actually saying that no one is even allowed to mention "The Book of Kells", for fear of violating their copyright? If so, that’s really going to fuck up a lot of History books!... I take on board what you mean about the distinction between Copyright and Trademark, but I think it still serves to illustrate just how ridiculous the legal minefield around both issues has become.

5faulker 5y ago

It's almost as if they're slowly declassifying documents over time.

nonameiguess 5y ago
A funny thing is actual US classification guidance is the default declassification length is 10 years from publication, and the maximum length without a special appeal is 25 years: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Classification%20Guidance.pdf https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/foia/Classification%20G...